One of the standard proofs of the existence of God is the argument from morality. Put as simply as possible, if there is actual, real (what we term "objective") morality, then there must be a moral lawgiver. Thomas Aquinas offered this argument in his "Five Ways" thesis. If there is no god, it follows, there is no morality. So some will argue that atheists can have no morality Now, be careful here. That is a misrepresentation (because language for us is so difficult). The argument would be if there is no god, there is no objective morality. There is no true morality. There is no morality that is over us all. So ... can an atheist be good without God?
As I said, language for us is so difficult. What do we mean by "Can an atheist be good without God?" Well, typically (and not necessarily always) "good" in that question is defined as "adherence to a moral code." And we just showed that atheists can't have a moral code, right? No. We just showed that atheists cannot have an objective moral code. They can certainly, absolutely have a moral code. And we know this, don't we? We have the phrase "honor among thieves" because even thieves have a moral code. It's just not one we share. So, let's settle that right up front. Can atheists have a moral code to which they adhere? Sure. Well, almost. It's a funny thing about us humans. No matter what our moral code is, we break it. At some point, we will always violate our own moral codes, whether from a god or from our own sources. So, I suppose it would be fair to say that an atheist who has a moral code can, to some degree, adhere to his or her own moral code. Good? Perhaps, in some sense, to that extent.
Here's the problem. Not having a moral lawgiver, atheists cannot have a moral code that they can impose on anybody else. Almost universally, they try (as we all do), but it simply cannot be. Going to the next thing, then, Scripture assures us that there is a God, and God is the moral lawgiver, the one who defines "good." Scripture tells us explicitly, "No one does good, not even one" (Psa 14:3; Psa 53:3; Rom 3:12). So now we know that there is a Moral Lawgiver who has imposed an objective moral code on all humans and that no one meets it. Can an atheist be good without God? By this definition, absolutely not, but not simply because they are without God. It's because none of us can be good unless God makes it so. Ultimately, then, the answer is, "No, an atheist cannot be good without God in God's version of good ... and neither can anyone else." Which is why it is such a relief that God "made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). Our only hope.
4 comments:
It seems to me that an objective moral code is written on the hearts of everyone. The only subjective part of it is our adherence to it. So many times I see objective and subjective moralists debate and some how, every time, the subjective moralists walks smack into the wall of imposing their subjective morality on others. But I'm no real sense can we say slavery is wrong if subjective morality is correct, because at the time, it was viewed as right, and we have no right to impose our subjective view on other cultures, this defeating the subjective moralists defenses. Thankfully, God condescended to write out His moral code, letting us know what the objective moral standards are.
David,
You are absolutely right. I've had that exact conversation more than once. The problem is that certain societies moral codes have determined that slavery is not immoral, and the 21st century white liberal has absolutely zero grounds to tell them that they are wrong.
It seems like the goal of those who deny an objective moral standard is to concoct an objective moral standard without actually being willing to assert that that is what they want. They want the benefits of an objective moral standard, without having to acknowledge that there is something or someone with the authority to impose an objective moral standard. Suffice it to say, that the obfuscation and diversion is impressive.
So much of this conversation with an atheist or a progressive christian is trying to stop them from sneaking an objective moral code in the back door.
It strikes me that the term “subjectivity” as it relates to morality is simply the degree that one follows one’s heart above all else, i.e. “doing what seems right to a man.” Those whose hearts are not regenerated by the Holy Spirit will therefore be guided by their sin nature--in varying degrees of wickedness--while those who seek after God and His ways will be closer to the objective, absolute morality that is from God. The contrast between these two groups of people is so evident in our society, where “subjectivity” is the ideological and practical rule (“true for you but not for me”). As you say, all of us fall short (Rom. 3:23), but at least the Christian has a trustworthy moral compass (with that “true north” about which you’ve written before). I for one am so grateful to have God’s guiding light in this life, for in its absence, I know I cannot trust my sinful heart to lead me to live rightly--and this is confirmed to me every day by observing how those who say they don’t need God or His morality live so wrongly.
Lorna,
"It strikes me that the term “subjectivity” as it relates to morality"
There is definitely some Truth to this. However, years ago I did a bunch of research on this and came across a sociological definition of morality. It was essentially that morality is defined by the group one is in. Whether that is family, tribe, nation, society, religion, or anything else, morality is decided by the group. If this is True, then it only makes sense that different groups will come to different conclusions about what is moral and that some of those will be opposed. If we accept this sociological definition, then the ONLY way for one society to get others to live according to it's moral code, is by force or persuasion.
When I talk about subjective morality, I'm approaching it from this perspective. While the more personal perspective you seem to be talking about is absolutely how it usually goes, I think the discussion is often in the context of things like "Slavery is objectively wrong." and trying to impose that moral code on others.
Having that external compass you mention is absolutely the most important thing. We can measure ourselves or societies by "True North" to see where we miss the mark.
Post a Comment